Morale - the truth

[DeletedUser]

Morale is an excellent idea in my opinion. I do not have an issue with helping the small players just starting up and getting going. However, a 75k point player who decides to devote their time to harrassement can do a lot of damage against someone like me in theta. If you have an offencive city on the border with a target alliance and you keep either LS or CS there then this small player can attack you when you are asleep and kill off valuable troops.

You cannot then retaliate properly since your morale will be shocking and you will lose everything, particularly if that small player gets supported by other players. The ycan be supported with the strength of a 600k player, but a 600k player cannot attack them properly.

Morale should have two thirds the effect it does every 50k points in my opinion. Therefore, as an example, if a 160k player attacks a 40k player then his morale may be at 80%. Then if a 320k player attacks a 80k player, his morale should be at 90%. In both instances the larger player is 4 times the size of the smaller, but the morale reduces as they both increase. This is because a player with 50k and above points should be able to handle themselves far better and so does not need as much of a boost. This will allow larger players to bring retribution to smaller players who are still able to pack a punch and annoy them. Another stage up would be a 640k player attacking a 160k player and then should have morale 95%. These numbers are all just demostrative since I don't know the morale formula properly.

Just because someone is smaller than you does not mean they cannot do damage. Everything is relative in my opinion.

 

[DeletedUser]

To a point morale rewards the player that is not very active, but if he is not very active is truely a reward for him or just a hinderance on the more active player?

If everyone who enjoys this type of game was able to be as active as you then there would be no need for morale. Then it would truely be a competion between the good players and the poor players. However the people that enjoy this type of game come in all stripes. The working family man may not be able to devote 2 or 3 hours during the weekday to the game, but can play for 5, 6, or more hours on the weekend with an hour or so on weekdays. It doesn't mean he is not putting effort into the game. Activity does not equal effort. You do seem to have taken the attitude that if people are unable to be as active as you they should not play the game. That is a bit unfair. There is the obligation to keep the game as much fun for the him as it is for you. When people who are only able to put in 50, 60 or 75% of the time that you do become nothing but cannon fodder they leave the game and you wind up with large swaths desolate islands, which we already have far too many of.

Also remember it is the working guy who is more likely to have the loose change to pay for some of the Premium features as opposed to the 16-22 year old student that has the time but not the money. That is the balance that must be struck, keeping both the players who have time, but no money, and those who have money, but no time. After all without them there would be no Grepolis.

 

[DeletedUser]

please read my posts accurately before responding. Xi does NOT have morale. it doesn't behoove me to "moan" as you put it about an entity that does not exist.

I was simply using Xi as an example. Since you don't play any other server I can't really use anything else as an example for you can I?

i have yet to have anyone intelligently respond to my point about morale rewarding those who do not play. i agree that activity is important at the beginning of the server but that argument has absolutely nothing to do with morale. morale doesn't help the inactives and slow players at that point in the game. there is no reason to deflect the argument in that direction.

That's because the whole point of morale is to protect the smaller player. If the player is smaller because they can only put in a smaller amount of time then so be it.

That doesn't mean that they don't play the game. You, like anyone else that has an issue with morale seems to have some sort of cut off point for stating that someone doesn't play.

i think it is possible to think that morale is a bad gaming element without as you put it "moaning". in fact i believe that i what i have done in my posts. your polemical posts however leave much to be desired. address the points in my posts and don't posit ephemeral feelings that really don't exist in my case.

Sorry, what? I use the word moan, you use the word whinge. Pray excuse me for using a similar word, but not the exact same one.

this game is a game of alliances against other alliances; not players against other players when played properly. it is greatly advantageous for players who plan on playing the game to join an alliance that has experienced players to teach them the ropes. an alliance can also help protect smaller players. from good alliances inactive or barely active players are booted. i am "moaning" about the barely active player who isn't making any effort in this game.

morale interrupts the alliance aspect of the game in that it makes it difficult to assist your compatriots in clearing the way for conquests. it makes it more of a player against player game which lessens the comradery and fun the game has for many of us. it is why i will never play another morale server.

As I have previously said it doesn't stop you doing it. It simply makes it more expensive to do. The game doesn't stop you attacking them, the cost makes you decide not to. They are numerous ways that an alliance can assist the smaller players, from playing tips, to boatloads of support, to throwing resources at them. None of these are affected by morale. This goes all the way back to my previous comment about adapting strategies.

a player playing 3 hrs per day on average will almost never come into a situation where he has 3 cities and his opponent has 12 unless he is a poor player or a turtle which is just another way of saying poor player. i have nothing against the competent player who averages 3 hrs per day. i'm sure that he dislikes morale as much as i do and resents the benefit going towards players, many of whom, are not even playing the game anymore.

What makes a poor player? A new player not knowing how to play, not knowing experienced players, just starting and being massively outgrown? A player out on the rim in an area a 200k player has just decided to move to, and as such the 200k player can pump units and resources to his new city and again massively outgrow anyone starting there afresh. Why shouldn't they be provided some protection?

this will be my last post on this subject unless the points i am making are addressed. i dislike your ad hominem style of argumentation, myself preferring a more straightforward approach.

lulz.

i am sick of your "moaning" about players who dislike morale. when you use polemical language you just weaken your own argument if it can be called an argument and not more accurately a diatribe. all of the top players i know dislike it. none of the top players i know like it. if they want to keep it that is fine since i do not and will not play on those servers. i am certain that i can pose an argument without "moaning".

make your counterargument without the unneccessary snide remarks and i will respond. otherwise, enjoy your trolling.

I'm sick of your whinging (see what I did there?) about morale and about people that choose to defend it.

And seriously, you're a fine one to talk about snide remarks.

 

[DeletedUser]

Also remember it is the working guy who is more likely to have the loose change to pay for some of the Premium features as opposed to the 16-22 year old student that has the time but not the money. That is the balance that must be struck, keeping both the players who have time, but no money, and those who have money, but no time. After all without them there would be no Grepolis.

Maybe thats truth, but here comes the question : where is that balance ? How many worlds have morale activated and how many dont have it ?
Why both 2.0 servers will have it activated ?
When we speak about balance, lets first make sure there is such and then discuss it.
+ i'm not quite convinced that players who play 2-3 hours a day, spend more money on grepolis than those who play more actively
Cheers

 

[DeletedUser8969]

this response is to Sigismund's polite, well thought out post.

i am 34 and i work for a living. i do not have much money to spend on this game and haven't spent any thus far. i have gotten free gold from surveys which i use sparingly.

you should choose a server speed to fit your activity level. speed 1 geared towards those who can't be on everyday. speed 2 towards those who are about 3-4 hrs on average aggregate per day. speed 3 towards those who never sleep and are on all of the time. i prefer speed 2.


this game is purposefully weighted in favor of the defenders. i have no difficulty with this. it is as it should be. i think this is enough of a tilt towards the defender who in this game is inevitably smaller than the aggressor. i've never heard of a 3 city player taking a city from a 12 city player who was still active.

a smaller alliance with skill and diligence can defend successfully against a much larger alliance. my alliance was about 40-50 members on theta and we successfully warred against an alliance with 4x that in members. In Control if any one remembers them. we were the Marauders.

the same can be said about a smaller player against a larger player. this is where alliance play comes into it.

my point is that alliance play can mitigate much of the advantage that is gained by the larger player. in PV on Xi we have players of varying activity but they usually log in once a day since it is a speed 2 server. we are prob at least 50% noobs but we've trained people we felt had promise in our immediate area. we haven't lost any cities to an outside alliance.

tripwires are an excellent tactic to be used for an alliance's less active players. all alliances i have participated have used them to one extent or another.

check the listing of PV players on grepostats. it will show you a panorama of points totals and bp totals. players go into vacation mode if they know they will be inactive for more than a couple of days. there are lots of ways around being a less active player than myself with good alliance play. there are plenty of players far more active than myself. i am fortunate that i can check my accounts status every 2-3 hours even if i can't sit down and play at those times.

as for desolate islands i don't see much more of those on Xi then i did on theta. whether morale is active doesn't seem to have much effect on that imho.

but to get back on point. having a quality alliance filled with skilled experienced players who are willing to teach is a far more useful thing than imposing an arbitrary penalty to the more successful players. unfortunately this is not a turn-based game so activity will always factor in. farming to some extent neutralizes this since it takes a considerable amount of time for the farms to regain mood. this is good because i wouldn't want to play in a world with constant farming.

this game is already stacked towards the defenders. do they need an additional modifier in their favor. i think with competent alliance play, morale is not really necessary. really success in this game is determined alliance to alliance not player to player. if individual players should be penalized ought not the big alliances be punished for attacking much smaller ones.

perhaps there should be a speed 0.5 or slower for those without much time. i wouldn't be opposed to it although i wouldn't play it.

 

[DeletedUser8467]

The active players suffer only if they are going to attack these less active players, it's more about trying to encourage large players to attack each other rather then all the large players gang banging the smaller ones.

I must confess i CS smaller players, but not because the are small, only for the positions of there towns.

But i also CS (or try to) and attack larger 800K+ players....if they are in the position i want also.

I do not bully, i only advance.

I agree tho, with larger players attacking small guys randomly , they should step up and fight other large players..........isnt that were all the fun is anyway? .

I recently CS a town of a small 100K player (again for the position), but in exchange offerd him a town of my own, i no longer wanted.

As for the morale......ahhh iv never paid any attention to it lol...woops

 

[DeletedUser]

-snip

If you're going to neg rep me for supposedly insulting you, please try and keep them out of your own posts.

I must confess i CS smaller players, but not because the are small, only for the positions of there towns.

But i also CS (or try to) and attack larger 800K+ players....if they are in the position i want also.

I do not bully, i only advance.

I agree tho, with larger players attacking small guys randomly , they should step up and fight other large players..........isnt that were all the fun is anyway? .

I recently CS a town of a small 100K player (again for the position), but in exchange offerd him a town of my own, i no longer wanted.

As for the morale......ahhh iv never paid any attention to it lol...woops

Thats pretty much what I'm getting at

 

[DeletedUser]

I wasn't rebuking your grammar, Skully. I was furthering your education and letting you know that the word you were looking for was "nerfed". Now you can go forth and use that word correctly.

I remember me doing the same to you once upon a time, but the comment was deleted.